The more photorealistic a painting is, the less interesting it is. amirite?

94%Yeah You Are6%No Way
88080808088s avatar Art
0 3
The voters have decided that 88080808088 is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Norman Rockwell would disagree.

However, even during his day, he was not respected as a painter. He was deemed an "illustrator" for two reasons. One, he painted for a magazine cover. Which was deemed a low art. And two, the reference for his paintings were photographs, unlike the master painters of yesteryear.

Still, Eockwell's ability to capture the finite detail of a boy's face, the comedic smile of a girl with a black eye, the infamous scene of a Thanksgiving dinner, are transfixed in our memories as classics.

I don't see how photo-realism cannot produce some amazing art in its own right today.

For me it's if I've seen this art style 500000 times(furry art) already Or if the art style is too abstract to the point where it isn't cool or beautiful or cute or realistic enough to grab my interest. Than when I see it I'm like. Next!

Impolsions avatar Impolsion Yeah You Are +5Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.